CANOE, March 4, 2002.

C-HEALTH

Circumcision, the unkindest cut

By DR. GIFFORD-JONES -- Special to C-Health

When I researched this column on circumcision,
my initial reaction was "wow." I thought the topic would be
as easy to write about as rolling off a log, but it took
hours. I hadn't realized the male foreskin had triggered so
many medical articles and so much controversy. Now I'm
convinced that most families make a decision on circumcision
without knowing much about this procedure. The question is,
has male circumcision increased the sale of Viagra?

For some families the decision is easy. They believe
circumcision should be performed for religious as well as for
sound medical reasons. But if that's not the case, what
should you do? A good start is a lesson on anatomy and its
sexual implications.

First, the foreskin doesn't cover just a small surface of
the penis. The skin removed by circumcision measures from
three to five inches in length. That's about half of the
total skin of the penis. Besides, inside the foreskin,
there's a band of tissue that moves in and out like an
accordion. This gliding motion triggers sexual reflexes and
contributes to sexual pleasure.

So shouldn't sensible babies cry out to parents , "you had
better think twice before removing such a significant portion
of my anatomy. And have you ever considered how this will
affect my sex life?" Some might even add in these litigating
times, "do it and I'll sue you for a million."

Due to the recent research of Dr. John Taylor, male babies
now have even greater grounds for being upset. Taylor is a
retired pathologist in Winnipeg, Man. In 1996, he and his
colleagues published a report describing
anatomically 21 foreskins in the British Journal Of
Urology.

In effect, Taylor claimed medical textbooks of anatomy
have neglected the foreskin for hundreds of years. In Gray's
Anatomy, the bible of anatomy, there's just one sentence
about the foreskin. But Taylor and his colleagues found a "ridged band," 1.25
centimetres (half an inch) in width, that runs around the
inside tip of the foreskin never before mentioned.

A detailed microscopic examination of the foreskin
revealed it's not merely a piece of skin. Rather, it's loaded
with blood vessels and nerves. Remove it and you also
amputate a large part of the sexual portion of the penis.
That in itself should warrant a class action suit
by millions of males!

Erectile dysfunction (ER) is due to several causes. But I
wonder how much Viagra is being sold today because of too
much snipping of the foreskin?

So why is circumcision being done? One lame argument
claims it prevents cancer
of the penis, an extremely rare problem. But you don't
amputate breasts to prevent cancer of the breast!

Studies do show that circumcision decreases the number of
urinary tract infections
during the first year of life. But is this a valid reason for
amputation that may decrease the pleasures of sex for 75
years?

What about complications from the
procedure? Luckily, they're rare but there have been some
terribly botched jobs. Some have resulted in severe injuries
to the penis and urethra (the tube that carries urine through
the penis). Other babies have suffered from infections and hemorrhage.

The Council on Scientific Affairs of The American Medical
Association has reached the same conclusion.

Due to the updated anatomy lesson from Dr. Taylor, saying
"thanks but no thanks" to circumcision seems to be a logical
conclusion. Surely, nature put the foreskin there for a valid
reason and it's rarely prudent to disagree with nature.

As Dr. Taylor remarks, "The value of the actual foreskin
is often put at zero. But parents should put a value on it
because it's a structure in its own right."

I'm sure some readers will argue, "I've enjoyed good sex
for years and I was circumcised." Maybe so, but they could
also be living in a fool's paradise. Have they considered how
much better sex would
have been without the snipping!

And what about the babies' pain? I've heard too many
screaming babies not to know it's a painful procedure. As Dr.
Margaret Somerville, a lawyer and ethicist at McGill University says,
"People have a fundamental human right not to have pain
intentionally inflicted on them." Shouldn't that human right
include babies?